Some tidbits to consider, no particular order:

I try to make decisions based on criteria established by debaters. If none are offered, I will rely on my knowledge of convention, style, and execution to guide me. What that means - I am equally likely to vote for a good thought experiment or critical intervention, as I am a traditional policy proposal. That being said, I have a higher threshold for what counts. Asserted risk calculus is as unappealing as unapplied critical jargon.

Mediocre debaters copy others. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.

Don’t assume I know what you are talking about

I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: 
Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. 

Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.



Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.



I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. 

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

I like:

case debates

disadvantage impacts that focus on early internal link claims and less on terminal impacts

affirmatives that affirm things

consistent but tricky negative strategies

counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits

alternatives

some relation to reality, even if contested

ethos

serious theoretical objections, including topicality

Everyone is always learning - including me and you.

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

1/22 Updates at the bottom for Open/JV

Parli philosophy

The shortest description of my philosophy is: It’s your time; you do what you want.

Partner talk- see above although I only flow what the designated speaker says.

T, theory, C/P, DA, framework, etc.- See above.

I enjoy well run kritiks and critical affs and most likely will boost your speaker points if you go that route. I find it a little too easy to vote for the K perm, I would suggest you put your preempts in LOC. (This does not apply to counterplans)

I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it’s unlikely to impress me.

Unless you tell me otherwise, all decisions will be based on in-round discourse with preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)

I generally do not protect against new arguments but very big, completely new arguments in the PMR might be protected against. This line is mainly so I don't end up stuck making annoying decisions in novice or JV rounds, if in doubt or in open, call the PoO.

I have been working on pushing my speaker point range up. I currently generally give points in the 27-28 range I am fine with speed. I am also open to speed bad arguments.

I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).

Updates 1/22/2020 for Open/JV only

My beliefs about presumption don't match the community norms. I have never voted on presumption but I'm willing to change that. If you want me to vote for you on presumption, please provide a warrant for why presumption is good and a warrant for why presumption flows in your direction.

email for evidence chains: scoxmarcellin at gmail dot com but speechdrop is easier and better in my opinion

Please feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.

About me: I debated in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I had several years in the open division of both, but was not competitive with the top debaters in those events. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.

General / Quick Overview: I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis is essential in the rebuttal at least, whether you're debating case or theory. I don't believe in an idealized tabula rasa, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. This means I will not "Google" some fact to influence my decision In round arguments and their analysis takes priority. I want you to do the work on the flow and impact weighing.

Theory: I love a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.

I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.

Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa. I allow cross-applications from sheets with terminal defense on them, the position isn't erased it's just not a reason to vote a certain way. Whatever you're cross-applying should of course be re-contextualized on the sheet it arrives on.

I have developed some concerns about the amount of aff theory. I suspect that it lets the 1AC advocacy be Conditional, and this seems less than ideal. But I also still believe it's a valuable check against abusive Negs. I haven't observed it affecting how I voted in a round, but it did affect how I felt about that vote afterwards. I suppose this means I'd love to hear good arguments about the role of Aff theory (uh-oh, more meta theory).

Kritik: I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said, do not assume I am familiar with the literature of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. Weak and generic links can be a liability, and I am skeptical of links of omission.

Kritiks and speed: the density of information, complexity of language, and speed with which debaters read their long kritiks impedes my ability to flow them as thoroughly as I would like. These seems especially true in the more bullet-point sections like framework. It might be best go through sections with long tags and short analysis a bit more slowly.

Role of the Ballot / How I vote: I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it. I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better. Provide analysis of how the in-round arguments (link defense, turns, cross-applications) should alter my analysis of the impacts. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.

I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.

Recently, I've become interested in the idea of framework debates as clashing models of debate, and I think this can be enough to create uniqueness for your advocacy, especially with good offense against their model.

Speed: I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. I'm generally flowing on a computer when judging, but I'll miss things at top speed. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to arguments about that.

Evidence-based debates: Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too. Speed: Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you emphasize your taglines and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. Prep time: "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out." (or uploaded to speech drop)

Speaker Points: Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.

I think passion, kindness, creativity, and humor can all have a place in debate. Pathos, logos, and ethos are all tools to bolster your claims. Clever strategies well-handled can be powerful, and can make the debate interesting.

Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.

I debated and judged at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in policy debate, but I have also judged/coached some parli and NFA-LD as well.

I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for teams who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over teams who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them.

I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply "reject the team" and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy a well applied, smart disad debate with real world scenarios and clear, coherent links to the aff. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it's an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate.

I'd say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I’m very sympathetic to “reject the arg, not the team.”

I'm fine with cross talk and partner communication so long as one partner does not dominate the conversation or consistently talk over the other. If that becomes an issue, it will certainly affect your speaker points and may affect my decision.

A note on speed: I believe that many debaters in our community would benefit from slowing down a bit, not just in rate of delivery but in overall organization of their thoughts/arguments/etc. A well explained central argument is more important than hitting every single piece of the flow or overwhelming your opponents with repetitive cards. Likewise, I believe many debaters could benefit from some sort of overview or round framing argument in their speeches, especially in the rebuttals. In debates where neither team is giving me a clear view of how I should evaluate the round, what I should prioritize or how I should weigh impacts, I will generally default to the team who I feel is most persuasive from a rhetorical perspective.

I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the "style". I look forward to watching you do your thang!

Judging Philosophy of Tim Elizondo

Background: I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program. Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years. The program’s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.

Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars. As a result, I view debate as an active and evolving game that has the potential to promote positive social change. This kind of scholarship promotes critical positions within the activity while reminding debaters that the utility of the activity resides in the debater’s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction.

I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government’s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round. I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a “pre-fiat” paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Admittedly, I have found that I do believe the affirmative is bound by the resolution is MOST cases and teams should be warned before offering a critical affirmative case that seeks to spotlight some sort of topic outside the scope of the resolution (especially if the team is running the same affirmative in multiple rounds.)

I expect to see “gear changes” in the styles and speed of the PM and LO. I understand a PMC may need to be quick, Rebuttals, however, should contain less emphasis on line-by-line analysis and, instead, seek to weigh out winning arguments. .

-I strive to record every argument offered in the debate, however, that should not be confused with an acceptance of every argument as valid, relevant, or compelling.

-I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.

-I do not mind “tag teaming” during points of order however, speaker points will be affected if it appears as if one partner is acting as a parrot or puppet for the other.

-Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

-Tell me where to vote…Tell me where to vote….Tell me where to vote

Yo!

Please treat me as the layest of lay judges. Although I've been in the forensics community for a while now, my debate experience is pretty much non-existent. Let's try and fix that!

Few things to consider:

1.) I'm an interp cat so performative arguments and flashy stuff will absolutely make me fall in love with you. If someone goes up there and raps their arguments while their partner beatboxes in the background I will surrender every speaker point I have ever accumulated in my life to y'all.

2.) Gently walk me through the debates! Treat me like a clumsy dog that just gained the ability to comprehend the English language, verbally put a leash on me and give me all the outlines and roadmaps and google earths's's of your speeches. Use any and all opportunities to feed me treats (i.e. tell me why I should vote for you).

3.) Feel free to run whatever type of debates y'all want (topicalidums, krattacks, dish ads, etc). I can't guarantee that I'll be able to understand anythi- every little intricacy thrown out but I'll genuinely try my best to understand. That said, I will undoubtedly gravitate towards simple, effective, and clearly articulated arguments.

4.) I absolutely love learning and (respectfully) getting schooled. Don't be afraid to flex your knowledge and bust out some obscure ish. Obviously it should relate directly to whatever arguments you're making. Or not, whatever... would that be considered off-off-case? is that a thing? help

In all seriousness, this'll be a learning experience for the both of us. All I ask is for everyone involved to be respectful towards your peers and to make the rounds as fun and as educational as possible.

I do my best to let the arguments unfold in the round and not let my bias intervene. I don't mind any theoretical positions. All theoretical positions need to be won and fleshed out in round. In terms of speed, if you fly, I may need to ask you to slow a bit, and if your opponent needs you to slow and asks, I expect you too.

I can flow. No problem with speed. I can and do vote on T and solvency. Not a big fan of kritiks but I'll listen if you provide a legit framework. See myself as a policy maker.

I update this google doc way more than I do my tabroom account (the last update was from 2015 - yikes!):

https://tinyurl.com/yd7ndhyh

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

For the most part, I can keep up with speed. I try my best to make my decision off the flow.

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

I am a likely best described as a mixture of stock issues and policy maker. I look at the traditional stock issue to determine if a justification has been made to make a policy change away from the status quo. Harms and inherency are important in this area. Next I see if the affirmative has advanced a policy that will solve the problems, provide advantages with minimal risk. Topicality is a voting issue as are counterplans. And yes, I actually believe counterplans must be non-topical. Disadvantages must outweigh advantages. I am not big on political disadvantages. I am not moved by charges that “Republicans” will take over/stay in power (or any other group) and they will then do “X” bad things. I want to see disadvantages linked to the affirmative case. In other words, if I went to bed and woke up with the affirmative’s policy in place, how is the status quo worse from that policy now operating. Use the vacuum test. In a vacuum, why is a world with the affirmative’s plan in place worse than the status quo. I am not big on Critiques and tend not to vote for them very often.

Please do not “spread”, I can no longer flow quickly and I have no interest in killing my wrist trying to do so. Be organized and signpost where you are on the flow. Weight the magnitude of impacts and the propensity of impacts in the summaries. Have fun, be polite to one another and respect the activity.

I will go into details regarding my specific paradigm, but most of it boils down to a single idea: do not abuse your opponents.

I have been a part of the debate community for three years. I enjoy new and fresh ideas and argumentation styles. I am willing to listen to most types of arguments, but inclusivity is incredibly important to me. You may speed if you like, but if your opponents say slow, then slow down. I will vote you down if I believe you are spreading your opponents out of round.

When I weight arguments, I tend to value human rights and social justice over economic arguments. There are plenty of ways to make economic arguments into humans arguments, but I will not complete that argument for you. I need you to impact out your arguments and tell me why they matter.

While I won't complete arguments for debaters, I will warn you that if you run capitalism good, I'll probably look for any excuse to vote you down. I do not vote on potential abuse, I vote on proven abuse, and I do define harmful language as proven abuse even if you think you can talk your way out of it. You don't get to tell oppressed people whether or not they're being oppressed. Language and rhetoric are very important to me in promoting inclusivity in the debate space. Be mindful of what you say. I know the difference between a slip-up and not caring.

As far as Theory arguments go, I'm open to them as long as they are relevant. I also give a lot leeway one way or another depending on the Resolution and how much wiggle room the Aff team has in creating their plan.

At the end of it all, I don't care whether or not you're a pretty speaker. I care about the content of your arguments. Tell me why you should win. Pause to gather your thoughts if you need to, it will not affect your speaker points.

I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State and am now ADOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached some parli. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (T’s, CP’s, K’s, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team.

I’m not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you don’t have to speak at a “conversational” pace, if I can’t keep up with you, your arguments won’t end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence.

I don’t mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn. No ventriloquism.

Any transferring of files in LD (via Speechdrop, email, flash drive, etc.) should happen during prep time.

Above all, keep things civil and have fun!

If you are reading this, that means I'm judging you. The important thing to know is that you can do whatever you want as long as its cool and you are having fun. Also, I'll probably get lost in your kritik if you don't make it simple enough. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, just that I want to be able to understand it before I vote on it. Also this is the first tournament I've judged in a year and a half


With topicality, I prefer proven abuse over potential, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on T if its far enough out there, but don't try and run "T:The" cause you aren't going to win that, and I am going to be frustrated. My threshold for T normally lies with the education voter.

With kritiks, I'm probably not the most well read judge, but I've read enough to understand the basic kritiks if you feel like that is the ground you have been given in the round (cap, imperialism, etc. Just please don't run deluze) I do my best to understand what you are telling me in round, but please break it down for me. I'm not going to be the most well read judge, so don't expect me to understand what you mean when you say the trees are fascist

Disads, go for it. Give me the weirdest most plausible story you can think of. I'm willing to vote on either probability or magnitude with probably a minor bias towards probability, however if you are both going for the same thing, time frame and reversibility are good tie breakers.

Counter plans: Condo isn't to bad, but don't run 3 counterplans with no expansion in the first neg speech and expect to win the condo debate

Memes? I fucking love memes and I fully appreciate the strategy of using memes in round

Quals: Debated for 3 years, coaching/judging for 2 years. And a year and a half of working in sales

The short of it is I am a policymaker who evaluates impacts first and foremost, but I still expect the debate to have good warrants/evidence for justification of arguments. If you compare impacts through a nuanced calculus your odds are much higher for picking up my ballot. I tend to vote for the team who makes me do less work.

TOPICALITY/PROCEDURAL

Theory is fine, but only under certain circumstances (mainly when it is egregious abuse). Topicality should have a DEFINITION otherwise its a glorified specification argument. I don't typically enjoy an 8 minute MO on T. Though, I have a much lower threshold when it comes to questions of conditionality.

KRITIKS/CRITICAL AFFS:

I will listen to your kritik, but only if it has specific application (IE specific links) to the topic. Same goes for the affirmative. YOU MUST HAVE A TOPICAL PLAN TEXT! If you decide to reject the resolution in front of me odds are you will not win. I also believe that the negative is entitled to ONE alternative advocacy.

PERFORMANCE

I believe that all debate is a performance via speak act, but if you want further clarification refer to CRITICAL AFFS section.

A2 K AFF

Framework, framework, framework.

DISADS

I am a big fan of the uniqueness debate. That being said, you should be controlling the UQ to the DA, case turn, impact claim etc. if you want to win my ballot. Same goes for the affirmative in terms of their advantages. Negative DAs should have a clear link to the plan. Each portion of the DA should have clear tags, claim warrant and evidence.

COUNTER PLANS

I believe counter plans should be unconditional. They should also be competitive (functionally and textually). Besides that, I am willing to listen to CP theory, and am down for whatever in terms of this debate. I do think that CPs are a great strategy.

RATE OF DELIVERY

I flow on a laptop, so I can keep up pretty well. Though, diction/articulation are more important to me than rate of delivery.

If you have any specific questions just ask before the debate.

Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College

Short Version:  I'm a stock issues judge.  I'm not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.  Thank you Joe Allen.  Be nice to each other.   I'll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion.  

Long Version:  Some debaters may want more.  Here's more.  Remember, being electronic, its length does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.                                                                                                                                        

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow. 

AFFIRMATIVE:  Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best."  I feel constraining the affirmative to the “best” definition removes their right to define and preparation time.  However, negative ground must be provided within the affirmative definition.   I once saw a debate where an affirmative team’s definitions attempted to lock the negative into defending female circumcision, on children, against their will, in unsanitary conditions, with loss of sexual function.   Uh, that is not reasonable ground.   

In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.  Weigh impacts.  If ten people die in Cleveland, that may outweigh a ski-billionth of a percent chance of extinction and/or nuclear war.  Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s). 

In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.

NEGATIVE:  In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.  Too often negatives think they are being clever with "time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.  Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.  Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable.

In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative's when in relation to the actual resolution.  Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it) are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other. 

What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?  Be nice.  Don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.  Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?  Really?

What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?  Stock Issues:

In policy debate, these are key for me.  Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.  Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.  Affirmative must win all four to win round.  Stock issues are:

1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot. 

Topicality:  Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued by negatives.  You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I'll really resist. 

Counter plans:  It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.  I am probably in the minority here, but that is my view.  CPs should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine, forced choice between the plan and counter plan.  Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad, like a DA.

Critiques:  Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.  I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality.  Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that ”we should all hurry up and die because life's greatest gift is death."  Really?  I vote on the flow, but I won't turn off my brain.   Still, if your names are Robert or Sterling, I might buy it.  They were eloquentus-maximus. 

Weighing:  Explain why you win.  Weigh impacts.  Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.

How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?    

SPEED - NFA-LD:  This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.  That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.  Only one has been "too fast" for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.  After all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right?   If I or the opponent call "clear," heed that request.

SPEED - PARLI:  Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.  I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.

JARGON:  Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.  For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.  Say something like:  "Perm.  Do both the plan and the counter plan.  If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.  Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together."

TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:  Please be organized.  I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.  I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.  I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.  If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.

Decision Making: Follow the rules and negotiate with your partner and opponents what the debate is about and how it should be evaluated. I aim to manage my bias and vote for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever, responsive, and dynamic arguments. I like well-reasoned and supported claim, and tend to vote on cogent, criteria-based arguments that are weighed against other issues in the round. Debaters should provide/contest a framework and/or criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation, add dimension where possible, and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. I tend to think education and storytelling is at the heart of forensics, but that can be problematized and I can be persuaded to think differently about our roles and/or the role of the ballot. I appreciate debaters who engage in line-by-line debating but also offer overarching narratives of what happened in the round.

Communication Climate: The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Attack the arguments in the round rather than the people. Debaters may experience discomfort and disorientation, and that can often be valuable in a learning environment. Heckling and cheering is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. Use preferred gender pronouns or avoid gender pronouns altogether. I will listen to you throughout the round. I hope you will continue to listen to each other.

Delivery: In terms of speed, the debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). For me, delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, and pauses. Avoid distracting nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Delivery will not factor into decisions. Delivery may affect speaker points, but I aspire to resist dominant norms about what sounds and looks credible. Speaker points are awarded based on efficiently making quality arguments.

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

I have two years of competing Parli and LD, so here’s some of my stances? Overall I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round I’m okay with speed, as long as it’s not stupid fast if I need you to slow down for me I will let you know. This being said I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

AFF:

If you want to run a Kaff you can just be sure to defend it and prove that it has solvency for the issues you bring up. I do not find them as persuasive as running case proper. Other than that defend yourself and prove why you’re preferable over the neg. I think that’s a fair request.

NEG:

Disads - I like to hear Disad vs. Case debate. However, I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me.

CP - Sure, they’re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won’t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on the face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them.

I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not, in the end, prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.

T/Theory - I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either-or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either.

In terms of other theories, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations of parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other team's responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications

For both Aff and Neg: on K's I don't find K's as persuasive as a running case proper. I'll listen to them, but remember that personally, it's not my preference and that you'll need to do more work for it to convince me ie. giving a realistic alt that functions both inside the round and outside of it, and that will actually solve the structural issue that you bring up. I don't vote on the risk of solving with the alt.

At the end: Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won.

Updated for NPTE 2022

On me as a judge:

- I was a critical policy debater in college and currently coach policy, parli, and LD at SFSU.

- I default to being a technical judge but am happy to judge differently if you tell me why I should. I don't protect the flow, please call out any new arguments in the rebuttals.

- **Speed is fine BUT now that we're virtual, please make sure you're speaking clearly if you want to spread. Audio quality can be poor when debating online, so enunciating is really important for me to catch exactly what you're saying.** It is most important that your opponents can understand you so they can engage with your arguments. If you're intentionally going for full unintelligibility or rejecting the English language as part of your performance, carry on; just give us enough so I can weigh it against your opponent.

- I dock speaker points for being rude in flex/cx, making excessive faces during your opponent's speech, or straight up interrupting your opponent's speech. As long as you're respectful, my speak ranges are usually 27-29.5.

On types of arguments:

- I'm drawn to critical and unconventional arguments. That said, I care more about seeing you debate what you believe in and are passionate about than seeing you craft a case you think will please me - if that's traditional policy for you, please keep doing you. This is your education and your debate experience first.

- I love critiques, but you need to establish clear, strong links. I love performance, but you need to establish and extend what your in-round performance is. I'm familiar with most K literature, but you need to make sure your opponent fully understands your K/lit so they can engage with your case.

- If you are not a K team, you are not at a disadvantage with me. I've voted against Ks just as often as I've voted for them.

- If you're neg against a critical affirmative, I want to see you engage with the critique as you would engage with a plan. I will vote neg for dropped theory arguments and/or for proven abuse if the aff refuses to explain their literature to you, but if you collapse to theory and the aff does answer it, you will have a hard time winning my vote.

tl;dr:

- Ks good, inaccessibility bad, flow judge

I'm trans so please keep that in mind if trans issues become part of the debate. :^)

Please use speechdrop instead of email chains! My email is oli.tripp@icloud.com if you have any extra questions after round.

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isn’t what I mean. I don’t think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical “completely fair” to an equally mythical “completely unfair”. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to “completely unfair.” Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didn’t especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:

1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.

2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.

3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.

4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.

5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.

6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.

7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.

8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?

9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.